On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:43:01AM +0100, Sven wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 09:27:05AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Well, this may well fgollow the letter of what is written, but in no way the > > > spirit of it. > > The "spirit" of it? The "spirit" of it? Puhleez. > > The DFSG's spirit is given by the customary interpretations on > > debian-legal and the history of how it has been used. Not by you > > insisting, first, that we must be very literal, and then, when it > > turns out the very literal meaning isn't what you want, insisting that > > instead we shouldn't be so literal. > > The actual "spirit" of the requirement is to pretty much ignore the > > aggregation qualification entirely. You didn't like that, so I showed > > how taking the qualification literally amounts to very close to the > > same thing. > Again, if it is going to be ignored anyway, why not remove it. > The rest is just play with words and other nonsense that is used for > justification. I understand the intent to be that the DFSG requires that a work MUST be freely distributable when aggregated with other works. If you take this section out, then it's possible for a work to pass the DFSG with a license that impairs our ability to redistribute it. If anything, the problem with the DFSG is that it doesn't explicitly make all of the same requirements of a work when distributed alone. The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Even more problematic (to bring up an old flamewar) is that the DFSG is specifically worded in terms of software; so a book by O'Reilly whose license allows it to be redistributed with a collection of software, but NOT with a collection of other documentation, would -technically- be DFSG-compliant. However, I can't see how this would be in keeping with the spirit of the DFSG. > But, i will make a proposal for the DFSG to be ammended so as to remove the > aggregation clause, or at least clearly state that we consider a null or > almost null aggregation ok. It would have to be the other way around; to state that even trivial aggregations MUST be allowed by the license. Nitpicking a license, only to leave ourselves unable to distribute part of our own 'approved' archive, is no win. :) But I definitely agree with you that some action needs to be taken on the documentation-as-software question. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
